[AOsborn]

The offering by OP is a fairly common and accepted structure, and this seems like an unwarranted nitpick?

Another org with a similar offering is Elastic, who offer Elasticsearch as a "Free and Open, Distributed, RESTful Search Engine" per the Github repo. No-one is going to be complaining that they don't offer their full platform under an open source license.

Offering a self-hosted version of your core product with an appropriate license is standard fare.

[teddyh]

If (correctly) calling it “Open Core” was inoffensive, and if “Open Core” is commonly accepted, why would you object to it, calling it an “unwarranted nitpick"?

The fact is that the Open Core model is quite controversial, and people should be made aware that Infisical uses it. But the announcement uses “Open Source” as some of the very first words of the announcement, and “Open Core” is not mentioned even once.

[AOsborn]

Because very few people use the term open core unless they are trying to be a pedant or nitpick, and your comment (and the grandparent) come off as trying to detract from the thread with a strawman.

The original post even explicitly explains what part of the offering is MIT licensed and what is commercial. So what is your point arguing semantics about open core?

[teddyh]

People using Open Core don’t often use the term, since many of them are sleazebags who try to avoid using the term to try to hide the fact that they are using it, often prominently using the “Open Source” moniker, with various bad excuses when they are called out.

[mikecoles]

Nope. Open core vs open source is a big difference.